Jump to content

~~ PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! || Millions of Impeaches, Impeaches for Me || House Impeachment Hearings OT ~~


Recommended Posts

To be fair to the lawyer in question, the DOJ will often raise contradictory defenses of laws or executive actions to give a judge multiple options in which to rule in favor of their position. It’s always odd to read those briefs because it seems like you should have to make a consistent argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Alexander is a no, Murkowski is a maybe, Collins a yes, Mittens no word. Best case scenario is 50 - 50 with Roberts breaking, but he won't. 

 

Best case is to have Bolton go public tomorrow before the debate begins and lay it all out on the table.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Alexander straight up says Trump is guilty without a doubt so we don't need witnesses, but not enough to remove him, so we should wait for the election Trump is currently cheating in. 

 

Alexander says "yes, he did it" but on one article, he believes it isn't impeachable. On the other, he doesn't think it's a valid article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...